tv [untitled] September 24, 2010 6:30pm-7:00pm PST
parking for whatever reason. the planning department would be against it. somebody else would be here that same evening who weren't being allowed to do something because they wouldn't have the parking, and we wouldn't hear about transit first. it would seem like these two things should be in conflict with one another but they weren't because the code is in conflict with itself. were this split to be allowed, nothing changes having to do with the parringing. there is no parking now. there would be no parking were the split to be allowed. that wouldn't change. nothing actually changes. the appearance of the house won't change. nothing will change. the fence will still be there. what will change, perhaps, is given the economic times that we are in right now and the low interest rates, it is a very favorable time for someone to
go out and get a loan and try to pull some equity out of a house and improve it. it does occur to me -- i think i heard some figure of about $20,000 spent so far. that would have gone a long way on a 1,000 square foot-plus building to have done some renovating. as far as i can tell, they are not trying to gain the system. perhaps they would be in a more favorable position to expand this particular property were the split to go through, but that is not guaranteed. it is not like this happens and therefore the other is bound to happen. one of the speakers said something to the effect that if that is not the house these couples wanted, why did they buy? >> i have two children. i worry deeply about their ability to live in san
francisco. my son and his wife make a very good living here, but it is very expensive to live here. for someone to get a t.i.c., you are going to criticize for something like that? i don't think that is reasonable. i guess i'm wondering if this really has to do with what went on the corner as far as the neighbors -- again to repeat myself. as far as the department, i think the attorney for the appellants did a very good job, and i agree with mr. sanchez that you can't compare variances. they are different sets of circumstances. as he stated, it is not presidential. the argument that would be used for why something would be a hardship is similar. the hardship here is economic
realities, and there is an article in our papers having to do with the "wall street journal" article that addresses the fact that with the quig haitian on a small property, it is not as clean and easy to get fbsing. and were you to get financing, i can guarantee you that you would not get the same rate they would get were you to have the split. to conclude, if someone drove by there every day for the last five years, and tomorrow this split were to happy, for the next five years, they would never know it. it is going to look exactly the same, and it is going to be exactly the same. the one little worry here having to do with expansion can be satisfied. even though the manabats might not want that, maybe affecting
the value of the property, we can place an n.s.r. on that and say you don't get to expand. sorry. i look forward to other comments. >> you are supporting overturning? >> absolutely. i thought that was clear. >> just asking. >> thank you. i'm sorry. >> well, i can jump in, i guess. i do take a different view. one of the speakers said something about there being no rational basis for the decision . we up here know that our review is no error or abuse of discretion. it is somewhat rare to see all five findings requirement not met on all five of them.
i think notwithstanding the comments we have heard so far, we are hard pressed to show the abuse of discretion. we have no rear yard, no parking, the hardship imposed because of this 1975 building having had a variance in order to be built. the owners of the property have already maximized the development, and that is what they did then, and then added to that a couple of years ago in 2007-2008. we heard that was completed a little over a year ago, also from planning that the upper area of that addition might not have been allowed if the lot had been subdivided before. i was persuaded by mr. sanchez's distinguishes of the
other variances in the pact. the addition is already 40 feet high. of the two parking places, one was meant to be for the house in the rear, and the concern that there could be additional buildable area to the smaller house in the back are all important considerations. this idea that con do conversion could be circumvented by doing the lot split, i find that very troubling. i think the rules we have in place for con do conversion are there for a reason. we heard various people complaining about how many hoops it takes to do that with a two-unit property. those hoops are there for a reason as well. i would hate to see us use this lot split to circumvent those rules.
the notion that $20,000 has been spent so far on this lot split, we heard from the tenant that the things that needed to be repaired were siding, roof repair and landscaping. commissioner garcia said $20,000 would go a lock way towards making those repairs. we hear sometimes about the foundation or the building is sliding down the hill. that made me think about that money may be better spent on the repairs. so i would actually support -- not support overturning. >> i will go next. i appreciate the vice
president's comments. i'm more in the camp of commissioner garcia. actually reading the variance finding by mr. badner, it was unique that he did not find any of the findings to be met, and it almost came across as one who was protesting too much and very strained. i think there was some overwhelming evidence particularly in finding 453 and other situations. i don't think rarely i have ever said abuse of discretion, but this was a very strained decision. moreover, common sense here, the out ward appearances, the way the neighbors view these two properties. in every form they have been two different properties, and it really is creating injury and harm to the family. i would be inclined to agree to
an n.s.r. or something similar to assure the neighbors that there wouldn't be substantial development of this property following a reversal of the variance. >> my inclingation is to uphold the v.a.'s finding on the variance. five out of five is hard to knock down. i think that -- and for many of the reasons that vice president goh articulated, i feel the same way. the concerns of the family about financing and all that, that is part of the risk you take when you enter into a t.i.c. as someone who looked into housing and purchasing homes in san francisco, that is part of the risk. the timing isn't great right now. that doesn't mean you can't
have alternatives. that is where i am thinking right now. >> i guess the starting point for me really is -- and also having been involved with various cases for 30 years, at least the ones that i've seen, most of them involved something that was not so different as this particular case is with regular planning tenants' of the code. we have seen where a lot that was 42 feet wound up splitting into two 21-foot lots.
therefore, allowing additional housing in san francisco overwñ >> in particular, the problems that this board is seeing, where such a substandard size is being created, not necessarily that it can't be addressed, the potential for problems is too great. if i went to the more technical review of the five criteria, i find that it would only conform to two of them, so i won't
i don't know why the city is still keeping the omission to permit for the window. so, secondly, the city -- why there is an illegal -- that is all i say. >> my name is regina, i am the daughter of the appellants. i have learned -- and lived on bryant street for all 20 years of my life, and that is why i am so concerned about how it involves our house. there is a party that nearly
caused a fire. our family has been afraid for our home in case of another situation that occurs. our neighbors of 2510 bryan street started renovation that includes renovation of the window on the north property. our concern is that the window would cause a breach of privacy being that the window is only 6 inches from the property line. this is a photo taken from our house showing how close the window is to our property. it was in renovation at the time. we don't mean to cause any trouble for our neighbors for the renovation, but we are very concerned about the window. on june 30, 2010, it was clearly
in violation of california code and no permit was on file to allow the work. we are concerned that this window will be a fire hazard in the future and create excessive noise. thank you. >> i would like to offer some information on our appeal. our argument is that the permit holders began work without obtaining proper permit initially. our second argument is that the permit was issued in error as the proposed work was in violation of the california building code. the respondents believed that this is not in violation because of the existing window, but our contention is that it
was an alteration because, for one, they're changing it from an existing window, and secondly, there are concerns in relation to having a minimum of fire separation, and also 5 feet from the property line. if i may, i could have the overhead? this shows the proximity of the properties. and there appears to be a difference in size from the windows that is being proposed at this point. it does exemplified that the proximity is definitely an
issue. >> i don't mean to cut into your time, but can you put that picture back up, please? that one. are you saying that there are 6 inches between those windows? >> my client is on the side. >> you're saying that that is 6 inches? >> i will show you what was provided by the respondents that shows more of the difference -- it is 8 inches. my clients confirm yesterday that it is actually 6 inches away. taking that into account, their
concern about privacy issues and the concern about there being excessive noise, the respondent can alleviate such potential concerns that my clients have by changing the window. likewise, having installed opaque windows so that it will alleviate all of these issues. our argument is that that is not sufficient enough based on the history of these properties. we ask that the board uphold the appeal and that this will allow my client for all of these years -- [chime]
>> wasn't there an additional window? or is that not this case? >> is only that window that is an issue, i believe. >> can you put that photo backup that shows how close it is your client? >> the window to the left is the new window, and the window to the right are your clients windows? they appear to be set into maybe a light well sort of thing, right?
and the windows to the left had been there, but they had been smaller or they had been a different configuration? and there had been windows there, right? where the windows that were their translucent, were they clear? >> [unintelligible] they tore the whole thing down. i don't know what's going on. rightn ow, they change -- right now, they changed anything. >> they took them out and put in these windows?
could you see through them? >> [unintelligible] you can look and see each other all the time. >> thank you. >> excuse me. >> sir, you will have 3 minutes for rebuttal. >> good evening. my husband's name is richard. where the sole occupancy of brian -- that address on bryant street. in december of 2009, we realized our dream and moved into 2510 bryant st.. there was deferred maintenance
and repairs that were necessary for home upkeep. we wanted to be able to begin renovation to our home that included the window replacement. maintaining our home is very important to us. the windows in our dining room were broken. we knew the windows were in dire need of replacement, especially after a particularly cold winter. we were not aware that a permit was required for when the replacement inside of a building. we began work without a permit. upon receiving a notice of violation, we immediately stopped work on the windows. we went to the building department, described the project, obtain a proper permits to replace the windows. we continue to work and replaced
the broken windows with obscure glazed windows. there are no larger than the previous windows and are in the same location. they're actually a little bit smaller. here is what they look like before. and now after. same location, same size, a tiny bit smaller. they're now obscure. their replacement windows, not new construction. we received the appeal from the board of appeals and stopped work. we installed the windows and the interior. the building code requires us to maintain our building. they are a direct replacement.
it would also have one other when no on that same permit, but that was not in dispute. we have this one also. we just put it on the same permit. the windows are a direct replacement of windows that were already in existence we wanted to increase privacy for our neighbors and ourselves. they stated as if the windows are new openings, and they are not. it actually increases their privacy and to minimize noise. we intend on being good neighbors and apologize for the noise that the work produces. my husband spoke to discuss the issues. she was forthcoming and polite
and described this was a negative experience with the windows wide open. we do not intend on being inconsiderate towards our neighbors. she had also been ill during our renovation. we apologize for this construction and for the inconvenience the work has caused. projects can sometimes be allowed, but they usually increase property values that adds value to the entire neighborhood. we have always been quiet neighbors except during the renovations that have occurred during work hours. we secured our permit, we were honest, and we paid penalties. we understand that there is still concern that we began work without a permit, but we don't know why any more. corrective action has taken
place. we invite them to communicate with us directly so we can attend to future concerns. referring to our three windows, if the window opening would have to comply, they were not in large so that it does not apply to our case. however, our home was built 110 years ago. our window also does not pose a fire hazard. it doesn't apply to our work because it is under the same code. the maximum percentage of unprotected wall openings is 25%. there